The LA Times appears to have removed information about the missing.
The parts in bold were in the original article indexed by Google 13 hrs ago.

Debris clogged the island's waterways as well: Coast Guard officials said that 90% of the navigational aids used to guide ships through the
channel had been destroyed or damaged, and the water was littered with car upholstery, toilet seats and cow carcasses. With many people on the
island still unaccounted for, crew members kept a lookout for human remains

Excellent post...
I was in Miami during the Andrew days, and saw first hand damage that was NEVER reported. We also knew with certainty that the death toll announced
as "official" was nowhere near the truth. Why? Who knows....
Seems the hand that moved figures there and possibly in Katrina's aftermath is at work here as well...

Many thanks for this thread. Having read all of it, I appreciate the efforts put in by the OP and so many others in providing links and other
information resources. Where I live in the middle of Europe, there has been precious little in the media about Ike's effects. Now, you might think
that un-surprising, but compared to Katrina and even some other "lesser" storms, the dearth of reporting in this case has left me puzzled.

Even the recent (ie post-storm) reporting by CNN International has been pretty sparse. Prior to the storm and even during its arrival on land, we had
hours of coverage, a lot of it fed in from CNN USA. Bearing in mind that when it was the middle of the night there in the US it was already morning
here, I was able to watch the live reports from Galveston from reporters based there as the eye of the storm came in. As an aside, I still wonder
about the fact that if there is a "certain death" storm on the way, it kind of negates the warnings in some people's minds to have reporters
standing there only yards from thundering waves, telling us how dangerous it is and how they should have got out. I can almost hear people saying,
"Well if it's so dangerous then wtf are you doing there?"

But back to the main point: after Katrina, we had literally days of coverage here from the US, much of it live and carried even on our local channels
(with simultaneous interpreting) as news crews made their way around the devastated areas and interviewed survivors, beamed footage of rescues and
those pleading for rescue from their rooftops, showing us the dreadful conditions at the "refuge of last resort" and the people chanting "We want
help, we want help," and even showing us the sad and chilling images of bodies lying in the streets.

From what I have read on this thread it seems that some of what we saw was not shown to you who live in the US -- at least the latter part I
mentioned. Or, if you saw such images post-Katrina, you are getting virtually nothing now, and neither are we. I for one am glad not see those saddest
images of humans who lost their lives for I saw enough of that first-hand when I was a volunteer firefighter; on the other hand, having heard
statements from PTB that something like 100,000 homes have been lost and that the devastation is widespread, I'd like to know that this time, the US
authorities have reacted in a far more coordinated and effective way than they did after Katrina wreaked her havoc.

You might ask why I, a non-American, could care less. Well, I'll tell you straight that I just could not believe what I saw last time. Not the
destruction: large hurricanes are the biggest well-organized moving energy masses on the planet so their effects should surprise no-one. No, it was
the utter shambles of the post-Katrina rescue and relief efforts that stunned me, because I had thought that the USA's authorities would do better
when it came to helping their own people.

So I have been waiting for some detailed and honest reports about what has really gone on and what is being done about it, and there has been so
little coming out that it's frankly disturbing. It's like it never really happened. As several have said, you can't hide the effects of a
hurricane. However, if you clamp down on the mass media you can certainly slow down the release of that information and reduce its impact.

Is that the reasoning? I don't know. But it seems from what I have seen (via the links to press conferences) that the media are being restricted.

There was no attempt to "lock out" reporters from New Orleans after Katrina. They even have resources such as helicopters and high-quality cameras
that can aid in SAR efforts. It seems absurd to not use them. By making use of the news media's assets, lives could be saved that otherwise
might be lost, or at the very least, the suffering of some stranded and desperate people (and their loved ones) could be lessened. And as for trying
to shield people from the truth that their homes or even their loved ones may have come to harm, would it not be better to try and clarify things? The
worst thing is not knowing. I speak from experience: after a disastrous bushfire in Australia some years ago my first concern was the safety of
my neighbours and friends -- and of course, our homes. My home was lost but at least I knew about it pretty soon and that was better than being left
in the dark. Worry is destructive. True, so is grief, but the sooner the grieving can start the sooner "closure" can take place and we can move
on.

So why deliberately keep thousands of worrying people in the dark?

A comment about restricting news choppers and so forth from flying over the worst-affected areas: chopper pilots are no fools and very, very rarely
make mistakes. A lot of them are ex-military and are, to put it bluntly, bloody good pilots. They have flown in far more dangerous conditions in the
past than in their now-civilian occupation and we do not need to tell them to be careful. Why news choppers should be restricted, then,
is not a matter of safety or "getting in the way" of official SAR missions. Far from it. They can (and often do) provide valuable assistance in
these missions. So why they've been restricted is a mystery to me.

My apologies for this long post but it seemed easier to lump everything together rather than post five or six shorter ones in response to other posts
here. I guess I just want you to know that it's not only in the US that we are concerned about this tragedy. All over the world, people recall
Katrina and what went on afterwards, and I am surely not the only one in this part of the world who is wondering why we are hearing and seeing almost
nothing this time.

I think the authorities -- whoever they are who've placed these restrictions -- should consider the needless worry and suffering they are causing by
not letting people know what has happened to their families, friends, and properties. If there are extra-ordinary and valid reasons for what appears
to be a clampdown, then one has to wonder what they are.

I pray that most people are safe. My heart goes out to all of those who've lost ones dear to them.

I agree that if someone builds in an area prone to damage by the elements, then they have to expect that sooner or later their homes will be damaged.
However, I think it also reflects on the authorities who allow people to build in unprotected areas (like beyond the reaches of the sea wall in this
case). I guess the opportunity to collect tax revenues from the owners outweighs considerations of human safety or potential property loss.

Regarding the sea wall: when I first saw reports about this wall prior to the storm, I wondered at the fact that so many homes were built on areas
that weren't protected by it. In other words, there was really only half a wall, and half a wall is pretty useless if there is anything to protect
beyond its limits. This is the case on the island where Galveston stands -- and its neighbouring communities once stood.

The question now is -- what will be done in the future? Will the sea wall be extended? If not, then what will happen when the next hurricane hits, a
hundred years from now or perhaps much, much sooner? And how many other communities exist in similar locations along that storm-affected coast? Do
they have sea walls? If they don't, will they build them? It surely must be more cost-effective to construct a sea wall than rebuild entire
communities and their shattered infrastructures. If they do have sea walls, then have they extended those walls to protect areas that may have been
developed more recently? Or do they intend to?

I live in Houston and the reason that you aren't hearing anything out of that area is that most of the areas that didn't have a seawall were
mandatorily evacuated. They showed Crystal Beach tonight on local news and its a desert, everything gone. I am in Northwest Houston and my cell just
started working about 12 hours ago. Most of those areas are impassable so you aren't going to get news coverage until there is alot of heavy cleanup.
No Conspiracy just DEVASTATION.

Other posters have touched on this fact, but let me see if I can further clarify why this is. First thing is that if they allow one news helicopter in
they have to allow them all in. Here in my small town we had a car discovered in a lake by my old apartment, and at least 10 news helicopters (Local
TV, and Local Radio) showed up for that event, so you can imagine the number of aircraft that would be in that area if they did not restrict it (Local
TV, Local Radio, National News, International News, Insurance Surveyors, Rubber Neckers, etc…). All those aircraft along with the aircraft doing
rescue operations are flying in Visual Flight Rules, meaning that there is no Air Traffic Control
oversight, if there is even operating radar available in the area. Though most of these pilots are ex-military, as you mentioned, there have been
accidents in the past where news helicopters have collided, or impeded rescue operations. Rescue helicopters have to remain at a stable hover to
launch crane ops, and even the prop wash of another helicopter that ventures too close may cause them problems. Another issue to consider is the noise
factor, often rescuers have to listen for trapped people to draw their attention, this is much more difficult with dozens of helicopters in the area.

Someone mentioned that it was an interference of people’s rights to close the airspace, and that is completely incorrect. Flying, like driving, is a
privilege, and airspace is frequently restricted over disaster scenes, sporting events, military maneuvers, testing locations, and other such places
where the air traffic can be a nuisance, unsafe, or impede rescue efforts. If they start restricting news personnel on the ground, then you may have a
case for a rights violation.

Other posters have touched on this fact, but let me see if I can further clarify why this is. First thing is that if they allow one news helicopter in
they have to allow them all in.

This isn't true. From Saturday/Sunday on the authorities selected a single local news outlet to send a chopper in to take "pool" footage for all
media sources. Problem was, they never got very far past the sea wall.

Here is some historical background: Galveston was previously destroyed in 1900 by a hurricane. After that tragedy (6-12K lost), the city raised it's
grade by 2m and added the seawall. Thus, it ptotected the extant city of circa 1910. It's useless to build a seawall the legnth of the island.
Hurricanes are a risk from Mexico to New York City. Where would they end? The houses past the seawall were mostly built as vacation homes, and mostly
since the last big strom (Carla, 1961) destroyed most of the older fishing shacks and ranch buildings.

Befoe the 1900 strom, Galveston was the largest city in TX, the second largest port on the Gulf of Mexico, and rapidly closing on it's economic
rival, New Orleans. Houston benefitted from Galveston's downfall, and eventually became the fourth largest US city.

Galveston also once had a smaller rival for shipping trade, Indianola. That city was razed by two back to back hurricanes in the 1870's and the site
abandoned. Thus, there is a historical precedent for the destruction of three major Gulf cities (including New Orleans), the abandonment of one site
and possibly now a second. The 1900 Galveston storm is currently the largest natural disaster in US history.

Thanks for your comments. I agree with pretty well everything you said. Not sure though if letting in one or a few news choppers automatically means
that they are all allowed in; I would expect that the authorities could place some restrictions on their numbers. However I follow what you say about
prop wash and collision risk. Fortunately the pilots would be aware of those risks and I'd hope would fly according to the high standards they must
maintain, just as the "official" pilots involved in the region would do. Yes, accidents have happened from time to time but I think the ratio of
collisions or downings to hours flown would be very low. It's still a point well worth considering, for sure.

Your point about the noise factor is an excellent one and inarguable. That would certainly be a valid reason to restrict all lower-altitude
over-flight activity in certain areas. Maybe not on an open-ended basis, but from time to time it may well be vital in the search for survivors.

I also agree that restricting flights is not a question of infringing civil liberties per se, in the same way that while we may have drivers'
licenses, that doesn't give us the right (for example) to drive the wrong way on a one-way street, or at any speed we wish. I think what concerns us
here are the blanket restrictions that were put in place and which seemed to dis-allow even the use of private assets like news choppers to assist in
SAR missions, which I believe they have done on several occasions in the past.

Thank you for the information. I was aware of most of it in respect of Galveston but didn't know about Indianola.

You ask where would the sea walls end? I didn't propose building walls along the entire Gulf coast; just asked if the towns along that region that
are susceptible to heavy damage by storms have sea walls or not and what are their future plans. In my opinion there are good and valid reasons for
extending the Galveston sea wall. The images of destruction in areas on the island beyond its limits are those reasons. Holiday homes or otherwise,
they are homes, and people have lost them, and in some cases, perhaps even the land on which their homes once stood. Some people may
also have lost their lives because miles of coastline on the island had no sea wall. I think those are reasons to do something about it and also for
other, similarly sited towns to at least review their own situations in a similar scenario.

I fear this story is an example of WHY people are not being "found"...

Bolivar Peninsula is home to about 30,000 people during the peak summer season, but after scouring almost all of the western end of the peninsula
by nightfall Monday, officials said they had found no dead. But Reed said he had spoken with residents who weren't able to find fellow holdouts after
the storm, and he feared their bodies might turn up as the waters recede. Home designer and builder Bobby Anderson limped off the peninsula late
Monday in a pickup truck battered by the storm, saying Ike swept out to sea a woman who had clung with him to a building's rafters. When asked to
describe their ordeal, he refused. "I'd really rather not," Anderson said. Ike's death toll officially stood at 40 Tuesday, with most of the
deaths coming outside of Texas. Among those killed in the state were at least three people who died from carbon monoxide poisoning after using
generators.

Based on the reports coming out so far....I expect a judge to also call for the removal of all remaining residents of Galveston. Except, of course,
the geniuses who thought placing a level 4 bio hazard research facility on this island was a great idea. They should have a lot of elbow room from
now on.

Bottom line: I believe FEMA has figured out that the best way to improve operations from lessons learned in Katrina is not to allow anyone to watch
what happens in the future.

Originally posted by Valhall
Typical of the behavior exhibited during Katrina, it now appears we have a real-time cover-up playing out for the West End of Galveston
Island.

From the very first post on this thread...Val was right.

GALVESTON — Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas on Monday ordered all city employees not to talk to news reporters. She did not say when that order would be
lifted. Thomas and City Manager Steve LeBlanc will be the only officials allowed to talk to reporters.

But at a noon press conference Monday, Thomas and LeBlanc talked for less than 30 minutes and refused to answer more than five questions. Thomas said
she would try to hold another conference today. Daily News reporters who tried to speak to city employees were denied and told no one could talk
except for the mayor and city manager. “It’s the worst thing the city could do. Those who will suffer most are evacuees,” Publisher Dolph
Tillotson said in a statement via text message. “The media will have to turn to other sources that might be less reliable. I can’t imagine a
dumber move under these extreme circumstances.” Before the press conference Monday, LeBlanc asked reporters whether he could go off the record.
Some television crews agreed and turned their cameras off. LeBlanc then asked news crews to urge their bosses and managers to show more coverage of
the island on television because evacuees didn’t care about what was happening in Houston.

Reporters staying at the city’s emergency operations center at the San Luis Hotel were asked to leave Monday. San Luis hotel owner Tilman Fertitta
was housing reporters at the nearby Hilton Hotel, which he also owns. Reporters would be allowed on the island only if they had proper
identification, Thomas said. She didn’t clarify what that meant. Reporters were also forbidden from visiting areas on the far West End, Thomas
said. She did not explain why.

Originally posted by JustMike
... but compared to Katrina and even some other "lesser" storms, the dearth of reporting in this case has left me puzzled.

...after Katrina, we had literally days of coverage here from the US...and even showing us the sad and chilling images of bodies lying in the streets.

So why deliberately keep thousands of worrying people in the dark?

Much of this has been ringing a bell, as I recall reading a piece about the untold death toll of Hurricane Andrew, back in '92.

The government cites 65 dead: "Andrew was directly responsible for 26 deaths, but including indirect loss of life the death toll was 65."
www.csc.noaa.gov...

But I found a report by k.t. Frankovich, originally published in nexus magazine (chime in here Duncan, if you have anything to add) which includes the
following:" According to the information which I received from my own sources within the National Guard, the figure I was quoted when I was down
there was 5,280-something. And they were quietly disposed of in incinerators that were hurriedly put together by both the National Guard and
FEMA..."

I wouldn't try and pitch a product on another site...but one should read this chilling report. (mods...some leeway, please. Trying to avoid skirting
copyright issues as well)

What can I tell you...I can only hope for the best, and that Katrina taught the various levels of government how to serve their citizens...instead of
serving up another FUBAR.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.